This page is part of the Aerosol MS web pages, and was created by Jose-Luis Jimenez

Brief Summary of the Feedback (by Jose)
  • RESPONSES: 18 people responded (out of ~50 attendees)

  • OVERALL RATING: average was 4.6/5

  • MOST IMPORTANT THING PEOPLE LEARNT: HOA/OOA analysis and software; the ToF; the wToF; software updates; and what other users are doing

  • TOPICS COVERED IN TOO LITTLE DETAIL: analysis software, various other topics

  • TOPICS COVERED IN TOO MUCH DETAIL: (almost unanimously) nothing

  • MORE USEFUL ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECTS: order and length of topics; local organization; wireless internet; and the shuttle bus that meant fixed start and end times

  • LESS USEFUL ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECTS: various things (see below)

  • SUCCESS OF OUR 1st EUROPEAN MEETING: the meeting was unanimously considered a success

  • SUGGESTIONS FOR 2006: various (see below)

  • OTHER COMMENTS: thanks for the organization

  • LOCATION FOR 2006: similar to the vote we took at the end of the Users meeting, AAAR-IAC is the first choice, followed by before AGU. The other two options (stand alone or after AGU) have very little support. (Note: I counted 1st preference as one vote, other preferences as 0.5 votes). In detail:
    • Option 1(after AAAR-IAC): 10 votes
    • Option 2 (stand alone meeting in Oct or Nov): 2.5 votes
    • Option 3 (before AGU): 9 votes
    • Option 4 (after AGU): 2 votes

Summary of the individual responses
  1. What is your overall rating (0: not useful at all to 5: extremely useful) of the AMS users' meeting?

    • 5 (12 people)
    • 4.5 (1 person)
    • 4 (4 people)
    • 3 (1 person)

  2. What is the most important thing that you learned during the AMS users' meeting?

    • Qi's organic analysis tutorial, ToF performance.
    • Details about OOA/HOA in rural vs. urban environment and off-line discussion with Michael Alexander about ion traps.
    • People really want to cooperate. That's great.
    • Application of HOA/OOA analysis
    • latest developments from other users
    • DAQ software updates (JMS, 3-sec-save mode, plume mode etc.). James' Toolkit: water correction, ammonium corrections etc.
    • The new TOF results.
    • All the TOF-AMS related issues/discussions.
    • The results from Frank's talk on the tof-AMS results and the potential to study single particles with this instrument was an important thing. Also I found Peter's talk on the resolution of the W-tof a pretty important gauge of the potential to do very impressive things for the aerosol community in general. Overall Doug's tutorial was helpful in getting familiar with James' template as someone who is relatively unfamiliar with the analysis of MS data.
    • Almost everything was very important
    • The analysis tutorial and everything else.
    • Batch Waves stuff
    • Qi analysis s/w
    • Most important thing was Dougīs tutorial using Igor
    • That I need to get my hands on a VW tof instrument!
    • The potential of the new W-TOF
    • Recent development of hard and software of AMS. Direct communication with AMS people
    • What the various users are doing with their AMSs, and the continuing development by Aerodyne

  3. What TOPICS do you wish we had covered, but we did not? What aspects did we cover in TOO LITTLE detail?

    • Nothing (9 people)
    • all major topics covered in limited time
    • Calibration procedures for the instrument (polydisperse nitrate??) A review of the field experiments that different people have completed and some of the major challenges that they encountered while on those campaign w.r.t. the operation of the AMS, analysis of the data, and troubleshooting solutions that they have come up with.
    • Subjects that could have been covered were discussed off-line during breaks. So no major gaps.
    • Instrument operation.
    • New lens development
    • Too little detail was using organic analysis program
    • Mathematical aspects of the HOA/OOA analysis; uniqueness of the solutions obtained!
    • You covered everything I needed. If there are new AMS users (new pos docs and new students), I think they need the extensive Doug's tutorial.
    • The tutorial from Doug could have been a little longer

  4. What TOPICS did we cover in TOO MUCH detail?

    • Nothing (14 people)
    • This year was very "bounded" - well done
    • Collection eff (same old problems with no new answers)
    • Maybe too much TOF.

  5. What ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECTS (e.g. order of topics, location...) of the meeting did you find MOST USEFUL?

    • Really great (GERMAN) organization!
    • location, but i would say that wouldn't I?
    • Meeting in Europe. Dinner, lunch, posters, meeting all close together.
    • good internet connection
    • The order in which presentations were given made sense, especially the fact that related issues were grouped together (for example, all CE issues, all new instrumental developements or all the TOF discussions).
    • Flow of the topics was okay, shuttle in the mornings was great - got everyone organized in the mornings, kept the meeting inside a set of known time boundaries so there was no chance that the meeting would extend 2 hours into the evening without everyone already anticipating that.
    • Order and length of the topics
    • Shuttle bus service
    • The set schedule with the bus...start time and end time are thus fixed!
    • Buses etc
    • I`m a rookie, I don`t know...
    • Like the location and the host (local organizer was terrific). Most of the agenda was covered, although it was a bit difficult to follow.
    • Clear start/end set with bus shuttle
    • The shuttle bus!!
    • You put the Doug's tutorial last, which is a good way to keep the schedule. Free wireless LAN at the institute was very convienient for me. It is good to have an AMS Mtg before the EAC. Since the AMS Mtg is the more intense meeting than the EAC or AAAR.
    • The wireless internet, good room and acoustics, and the shuttle service that meant that we had to keep to the start and end times each day.

  6. What ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECTS of the meeting did you find LEAST USEFUL?

    • Nothing (9 people)
    • Need coffee first thing in the morning.
    • The timetable... ;-)
    • No day off between meeting and conference.
    • I feel like we could be more productive with the time that we spend drinking coffee and eating lunch. Going to the canteen was sort of a drag, but it was alright. Specifically with the time, I think we could shorten up the coffee break times from 30 - 15 mins or at least make an effort to get people to stick to 30 mins and then get back in the room.
    • Poster viewing not well integrated. Should have been using latest analysis template.
    • Perhaps it is better to try and have everyone in the same hotel, probably was not feasible in Julich, but in the future
    • canteen is a long way from lectures
    • Maybe I can answer this question next year...
    • Schedule with topics was distributed last minute

  7. This is our first AMS users meeting organized and conducted in Europe. Was this meeting a success (for the material and the location)?

    • Yes (7 people)
    • Yes, in both aspects is was a great success.
    • Yes, although it reduces the American contingent by a lot of people.
    • Perfect
    • I definitely think it was successful, both for the content of discussions as well as logistical things.
    • Yes it was the most successful user's meeting I've been to yet. (3 years)
    • Worked fine, though the US delegation was reduced and a bit more tired than usual ...
    • Yes it was. I hope, that AUMīs are organized in Europe in a future.
    • yes, big success, very useful meeting.
    • Certainly it was.. Although i can't really compare it to any of the previous meetings for obvious reasons!!
    • Owing to Astrid, it was a very successful meeting. For Japanese, jetlag is less severe to go to Europe than to USA.

  8. Do you have any other SUGGESTIONS for the organization of next year's meeting?

    • Nothing (4 people)
    • Put the posters in a more central location
    • If the option of having the meeting around AGU time is being considered but the logistics may be too costly, how about having the meeting in Boulder? At least in terms of meeting logsitcs, I guess it would be easier to arrange for it there. and for international users, DIA is still accessible.
    • I would seriously consider Cape Town. Besides the extra flight time, the cost of the lodging +food + renting space within some facility would offset the additional cost of the air fare as long as people got organized with buying tickets. Also, if groups coordinated the purchase of their tickets this would minimize the talk. As far as a location for the meeting, my professor from Connecticut college will be there this coming spring and I could have him get some details from the University of Cape Town regarding space. I am not kidding. It could potentially work.
    • Data tutorial on the last day is a good thing...also everyone had a lot more energy since we hadn't been at a conference for a week prior. The new question is how will those of us going to the conference feel after another week.
    • Try to have a little more time for break-out discussions.

  9. Any other COMMENTS that you want to add about this or next year's meetings?

    • Meeting AFTER the conference is better: One can hear the presentations of the users before the meeting.
    • Keep it near an international conference
    • Tim and Astrid did an awesome job! They both rule!
    • thanks to astrid
    • Astrid, Tim, and Jose did a fantastic job
    • Wish I could have stayed longer - it was a fantastic meeting!
    • Thanks to Tim and Jose for your great effort for the AMS meeting.

  10. Next year's AMS Users Meeting could occur (1) after AAAR-IAC Meeting (Sept. 15-18), (2) mid-October or mid-November not associated with any science meeting (for example Nov. 15-17, but these dates would be more flexible), (3) before AGU (Dec. 8-10), or (4) after AGU (Dec. 16-18). [NOTE: AAAR-IAC dates are Sept. 11-15, and AGU dates are Dec. 10-15.] Which date would work best for you? Why? (see attached slide with these dates)

    • Option 1. It's good to link it with a conference. We don't usually attend the AGU and December isn't a good date.
    • Option 1 (w/ AAAR-IAC) is the best. Option 3 (before AGU) would be doable. Options 2 (by itself) or 4 (after AGU) are impractical and would reduce attendance greatly.
    • tricky the IGAC meeting in Cape Town is the 17th September as well so I cannot see there bein too many attendees at that time. Pre AGU is semester time in the UK, though I should be able to make. That said there are the EU SCOUT and UK ACTIVE experiment in Australia so a few people may well be missing there. It may be best to choose an unrelated date. BUT we must get the date fixed very soon and not move it.
    • Best would be (1), so Sept. 16-19 (one day off in between).
    • (1) After IAC o.k. (2) not associated is not very useful. (3), (4) might be possible but the AGU-Fall meeting has less priority than the IAC
    • I personally prefer not to have it after AAAR since most probably we won't be able to make it back from the field. My preferance would be 2, 4, 3 (in that order).
    • If not Cape Town I would prefer AGU (before) time slot
    • Any of these dates are fine with me, but my first choice will be after AAAR-IAC since I will certainly attend AAAR-IAC. I also prefer users meeting after the major meeting since it is so intense that I really want a good rest after it.
    • 3 - interested in going to AGU for a change (and broader range of science) rather than AAAR 1 - also possible at present
    • Before fall agu
    • I defer to the experts.
    • ask hugh...
    • I am sorry I couldn't come to the meeting this year but would like to be able attend next year. So..I vote for the November dates or the pre-AGU dates since we will still be in Houston during the Sept. dates after the IAC. Post-AGU gets a little late and starts to run into Christmas issues.
    • Sorry again for missing the meeting. As for 2006, we will be in the field for the Houston study during the September period. My first choice is the November time, followed by the slot before AGU. After AGU is probably going to be a hard sell since it it the weekend before Christmas.
    • Maybe in September. I donīt know my scedule next year yet, but I might have some teaching to do.
    • I would prefer (1), as for European users it is best to combine the trip to the US with a conference, and December always tends to have a very busy schedule.
    • Any date is preferable except #1 since we will be at the end of our field study and it will be difficult to attend the entire AMS users meeting (I won't be attending the IAC meeting).
    • Options 1 and 3 with a preference to option 1
    • Either of the AAAR or the AGU are fine by me (if i can get a visa of course!!).
    • Best 1) related to AAAR-IAC. Next 3) Before AGU (Dec. 8-10). Third 4) After AGU (Dec. 16-18) Close to the end of year. Not preferred 2) It makes me difficult to go abroad if AMS Mtg is not associated with any conference.